The news report is, for once, pretty detailed on the descriptions of what happened. Or at least the alternative versions. Maybe there was enough space, and it's a tragic accident that the girl fell straight in front of the car. Maybe the cyclist's explanation of only having two feet of space was correct. I guess we'll never really know. Though some things give indications. Primarily the description of what might have caused the girl to fall (i.e. that her boyfriend had braked and moved, and their wheels had touched, throwing her off - now would he have braked and moved if he felt comfortable that there was space for the car?).
But what really gets me annoyed about this (over and above the crass comments of the lawyer, for once I'm not going to defend someone as 'just doing his job', his comments are ridiculous in the extreme, placing blame on an entirely innocent party who, let's face it, probably already feels devastated about this) are two commetns from the driver.
Firstly, she says that she was driving with due care and attention; but also says that she didn't see the cyclists coming the other way, and didn't know where they'd come from. Now if you're driving with due care and attention I would have thought you'd spot a couple of cyclists coming the other way surely?
And secondly, she states there was enough space to complete the overtake; but also states that if she'd seen the cyclists she wouldn't have tried the overtake. Erm, if there was enough space then why would you not attempt the overtake if you'd seen the cyclists?
Those two items, for me, cast serious doubt on the testimony.
posts
